The fallacy of black unwed births

[IM2]

supi

I understand that they are, that's debatable. Either way whites overall birthrates are in decline. Blacks birthrates are on the rise. demographics are changing and that's why there is so much more focus on black culture now than even five years ago. So what IS this point of this thread, anyway?

Black birth rates are not on the rise.

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

That's not a rate, that's a total. You understand the difference?

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

I was being accurate, he was being stupid.​

No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

Dear IM2 and Toddsterpatriot
My apologies to you both for misunderstanding.
I see we are each saying 3 different things
1. Toddsterpatriot is focused on the rates
so if you compare the percent of blacks to the whole population
and then look at the percent of black unwed births to the whole population
TP is looking at RATES
2. IM2 if you are looking at the total numbers,
then that's different
3. And I'm saying you can look at both approaches,
but don't cross over from one to the other. Stick with
just that one way, either rates or totals.

IM2 let's take another example of why rates tell us something
that totals don't explain: if we only looked at totals not rates, what about the numbers of slave owners who were blacks enslaving blacks and whites enslaving black slaves.

1. by looking at RATES, then the Percent of blacks in the south over the total population of whites and blacks in the south was equivalent to the Percent of blacks who were slave business owners over the total of both whites and blacks who were slave owners. the percent was equivalent.

2. but if we only look at totals, then there were more whites in both the total population in the south and in the number of slave owners.

So that doesn't tell us as much.

The RATES show us that it was proportional.

Now IM2 I think what people are yelling about with the racial stats,
even though the black population is a smaller PERCENT of the total,
people use stats to show the black crime rate is DISPROPORTIONATE.

And that's why people insist on considering the context of
percent of total population along with the percents of either crime,
unwed births, etc etc.

Again for me IM2 I bypass this by looking at what is CAUSING the crime in the first place. the Genocidal damage by race based slavery, rape, and treating people as property instead of exercising equal ownership of property laws and govt is the key factor.

And that factor doesn't rely on how many people were affected, or percents or totals.

That factor affects people as individuals, then as generations, then collectively as an identity of whatever size you see it as.

the number or the percent of the people affected by this factor could be small or could be large, and it still affects THOSE people.

So this is where I take this "individualism" approach and make it work for those people who are affected by generational genocide, where there is NO NEED to justify or discredit either way, no need to try to use stats to explain it.

So that bypasses the need for any of these arguments on population or on totals or percents.

IM2 if people whether individuals or small groups or large are affected by generational genocide and disparity, that causes injury in and of itself.

That injury and those wounds need to be healed in order to end the vicious cycle of abuse, addiction, crime or violence or whatever else those INDIVIDUALS have suffered, either as single people or as mass groups, regardless of numbers.

You can argue totals or percents, back and forth, all day and all night.
And that doesn't heal any wounds or change the internal dynamics
that help empower people to change the symptoms that result.

Arguing about the symptoms isn't the same as healing the root
cause of injustice, oppression and injury.

So I'm okay with looking at it by either totals or rates, but not confusing
the two, and not abusing stats to divide. If people don't agree with one approach or explanation, let's find the approach that incurs change.

If totals don't work for one person, or rates don't work for another,
then duh, let's focus on what does work to change and fix problems!

Thank you Gentlemen
and sorry to you both
Toddsterpatriot and IM2
for not understanding what you were both saying

IM2 seems to be saying the very high rate for blacks is being unfairly used to criticize blacks.
He seems to feel the criticism is unfair, because the raw number of white, unwed births is higher.
He feels the same way about crime statistics.

The very high rate is a strawman. That's what I am saying. The same goes for crime.

 

[IM2]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

 

[IM2]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

The only reason the black illegitimacy rate is even brought up in the first place is to try and come up with non-racist explanations for why the black crime rate is so high. IM2 does no favors to his cause by denying fatherlessness as a potential cause.

Well given the fact that unwed births do not automatically mean fatherlessness as well as the fact that when blacks had whitey acceptable rates of married births black poverty was higher, then the argument you make about illegitimacy is neither based on reality or fact.

 

[Correll]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

My God, you actually started this mess? You really are serious about your not understanding the importance of PROPORTIONS and RATES, as opposed to absolute numbers.


Incredible. I did not believe you were honestly this stupid.


But you have convinced me.

 

[impuretrash]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

 

[IM2]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

My God, you actually started this mess? You really are serious about your not understanding the importance of PROPORTIONS and RATES, as opposed to absolute numbers.


Incredible. I did not believe you were honestly this stupid.


But you have convinced me.

I'm not even going to begin wasting my time with an idiot who declares there is a national policy of racial discrirnination against whites but can't show he policies.

 

[IM2]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

 

[impuretrash]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

 

[IM2]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

Wrong. I used that as an example of how rates only matter to you to use as an excuse to deny white failure.

 

[impuretrash]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

Wrong. I used that as an example of how rates only matter to you to use as an excuse to deny white failure.

Let me get this straight...

Black murder rates don't matter, because more white people commit murder.

More white people are shot by police than blacks, but it's the black rate that matters.

And whites are the hypocrites?

 

[Correll]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

HIs stupidity is beyond belief.

 

[Correll]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

My God, you actually started this mess? You really are serious about your not understanding the importance of PROPORTIONS and RATES, as opposed to absolute numbers.


Incredible. I did not believe you were honestly this stupid.


But you have convinced me.

I'm not even going to begin wasting my time with an idiot who declares there is a national policy of racial discrirnination against whites but can't show he policies.

How many points is black skin worth for you in Ivy League admissions?

 

[IM2]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

Wrong. I used that as an example of how rates only matter to you to use as an excuse to deny white failure.

Let me get this straight...

Black murder rates don't matter, because more white people commit murder.

More white people are shot by police than blacks, but it's the black rate that matters.

And whites are the hypocrites?

No, what I'm saying is whites commit more crimes and that if we are going to consider rates we consider all rates. You see racist, whites have a huge crime problem but you are here pretending that the problem is so great among blacks that you can ignore the much larger problem you whites have to endlessly talk bullshit about black crime.

 

[bgrouse]

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

Stormfront - White Nationalist Community <meta name="sitelock-site-verification" content="3053" />

Doesn't seem "shut down" to me.

It was at one point. But since you are obviously far more informed than I am regarding them, you may be right.

I am right. They were down while changing service providers, so any members of that site would have left a while ago since the site went up again.

 

[IM2]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

My God, you actually started this mess? You really are serious about your not understanding the importance of PROPORTIONS and RATES, as opposed to absolute numbers.


Incredible. I did not believe you were honestly this stupid.


But you have convinced me.

I'm not even going to begin wasting my time with an idiot who declares there is a national policy of racial discrirnination against whites but can't show he policies.

How many points is black skin worth for you in Ivy League admissions?

None. How many points has white skin been worth in America since 1776?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

supi

Black birth rates are not on the rise.
No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

Dear IM2 and Toddsterpatriot
My apologies to you both for misunderstanding.
I see we are each saying 3 different things
1. Toddsterpatriot is focused on the rates
so if you compare the percent of blacks to the whole population
and then look at the percent of black unwed births to the whole population
TP is looking at RATES
2. IM2 if you are looking at the total numbers,
then that's different
3. And I'm saying you can look at both approaches,
but don't cross over from one to the other. Stick with
just that one way, either rates or totals.

IM2 let's take another example of why rates tell us something
that totals don't explain: if we only looked at totals not rates, what about the numbers of slave owners who were blacks enslaving blacks and whites enslaving black slaves.

1. by looking at RATES, then the Percent of blacks in the south over the total population of whites and blacks in the south was equivalent to the Percent of blacks who were slave business owners over the total of both whites and blacks who were slave owners. the percent was equivalent.

2. but if we only look at totals, then there were more whites in both the total population in the south and in the number of slave owners.

So that doesn't tell us as much.

The RATES show us that it was proportional.

Now IM2 I think what people are yelling about with the racial stats,
even though the black population is a smaller PERCENT of the total,
people use stats to show the black crime rate is DISPROPORTIONATE.

And that's why people insist on considering the context of
percent of total population along with the percents of either crime,
unwed births, etc etc.

Again for me IM2 I bypass this by looking at what is CAUSING the crime in the first place. the Genocidal damage by race based slavery, rape, and treating people as property instead of exercising equal ownership of property laws and govt is the key factor.

And that factor doesn't rely on how many people were affected, or percents or totals.

That factor affects people as individuals, then as generations, then collectively as an identity of whatever size you see it as.

the number or the percent of the people affected by this factor could be small or could be large, and it still affects THOSE people.

So this is where I take this "individualism" approach and make it work for those people who are affected by generational genocide, where there is NO NEED to justify or discredit either way, no need to try to use stats to explain it.

So that bypasses the need for any of these arguments on population or on totals or percents.

IM2 if people whether individuals or small groups or large are affected by generational genocide and disparity, that causes injury in and of itself.

That injury and those wounds need to be healed in order to end the vicious cycle of abuse, addiction, crime or violence or whatever else those INDIVIDUALS have suffered, either as single people or as mass groups, regardless of numbers.

You can argue totals or percents, back and forth, all day and all night.
And that doesn't heal any wounds or change the internal dynamics
that help empower people to change the symptoms that result.

Arguing about the symptoms isn't the same as healing the root
cause of injustice, oppression and injury.

So I'm okay with looking at it by either totals or rates, but not confusing
the two, and not abusing stats to divide. If people don't agree with one approach or explanation, let's find the approach that incurs change.

If totals don't work for one person, or rates don't work for another,
then duh, let's focus on what does work to change and fix problems!

Thank you Gentlemen
and sorry to you both
Toddsterpatriot and IM2
for not understanding what you were both saying

IM2 seems to be saying the very high rate for blacks is being unfairly used to criticize blacks.
He seems to feel the criticism is unfair, because the raw number of white, unwed births is higher.
He feels the same way about crime statistics.

The very high rate is a strawman. That's what I am saying. The same goes for crime.

The very high rate is a strawman.

The very high rate is a fact.

 

[bgrouse]

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

Wrong. I used that as an example of how rates only matter to you to use as an excuse to deny white failure.

Let me get this straight...

Black murder rates don't matter, because more white people commit murder.

More white people are shot by police than blacks, but it's the black rate that matters.

And whites are the hypocrites?

No, what I'm saying is whites commit more crimes and that if we are going to consider rates we consider all rates. You see racist, whites have a huge crime problem but you are here pretending that the problem is so great among blacks that you can ignore the much larger problem you whites have to endlessly talk bullshit about black crime.

OK, so what rates do you want to consider, in addition to the black violent crime rate? Give us a comprehensive list and explain why they're relevant to this discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

And herein lies the hypocrisy.

Yep. According to you, rates don't matter.

until they do.

Wrong. I used that as an example of how rates only matter to you to use as an excuse to deny white failure.

Let me get this straight...

Black murder rates don't matter, because more white people commit murder.

More white people are shot by police than blacks, but it's the black rate that matters.

And whites are the hypocrites?

Black murder rates don't matter, because more white people commit murder.

Actually, there are more murders committed by blacks.

 

[IM2]

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.

Fucking lol. If more whites are shot than black, and rates don't matter, then what the fuck is up with BLM?

HIs stupidity is beyond belief.

I'm far smarter than you.

 

[Correll]

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

You've lived your life making dishonest statistical analysis. I did flat earth you and that's because its true. Now I've said to you what I am going to about this matter. You've been shown your error and just because you don't like what you see doesn't make what was done dishonest. You can post in bold at font size 6 all you want but your standing on that 70 percent does not reflect anything that really has any meaning but the perpetuation of a white belief in moral superiority.

My God, you actually started this mess? You really are serious about your not understanding the importance of PROPORTIONS and RATES, as opposed to absolute numbers.


Incredible. I did not believe you were honestly this stupid.


But you have convinced me.

I'm not even going to begin wasting my time with an idiot who declares there is a national policy of racial discrirnination against whites but can't show he policies.

How many points is black skin worth for you in Ivy League admissions?

None. How many points has white skin been worth in America since 1776?

1. I've shown you documented and peer reviewed academic studies that showed that having black skin was equal to 230 sat points. YOu just lied.


2. I'm sure in 1776 it was worth a lot. Today, it is a penalty as you are competing against minorities that get skin based bonuses.